United States v. Gregory Bell
808 F.3d 926
D.C. Cir.2015Background
- Petitions for rehearing en banc filed by Bell and Wilson were denied.
- The court discusses the propriety of using acquitted or uncharged conduct to raise a defendant’s sentence.
- The discussion cites Booker and its remedial stance on advisory Sentencing Guidelines.
- Concerns about sentencing based on acquitted conduct are linked to Sixth and Fifth Amendment considerations.
- Judge Kavanaugh concurring emphasizes district courts may address acquitted conduct at sentencing within the current framework; Millett cautions against acquitted conduct regardless of advisory status.
- Concurrence by Millett urges Supreme Court review to resolve ongoing contradictions in sentencing law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a sentencing court rely on acquitted or uncharged conduct to enhance a sentence? | Bell argues such reliance violates the Sixth Amendment. | The government/Panel argues precedents allow sentencing factors beyond charged conduct. | Denial of rehearing en banc affirmed. |
| Should the en banc court address the Sixth Amendment issues raised by acquitted conduct? | Millett contends the issue warrants en banc consideration to correct a longstanding anomaly. | Respondents argue existing precedents suffice and en banc review is unnecessary. | En banc denial stands; Supreme Court should resolve the conflict. |
Key Cases Cited
- Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (U.S. (2005)) (advisory guideline regime; broad sentencing discretion within statutory ranges)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. (2013)) (jury, not judge, must find facts that alter sentencing range)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. (2004)) (faults of sentencing based on judicial findings beyond reasonable doubt)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. (2007)) (advisory guidelines and reasonableness of sentences within range)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. (2007)) (guidelines as framework; within-range sentences presumptively reasonable)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (U.S. (2007)) (guide to variance within advisory guidelines)
- Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (U.S. (2013)) (guidelines have force as sentencing framework)
- United States v. Dorcely, 454 F.3d 366 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (acquitted conduct can influence sentencing under prior circuit rule)
- Jones v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 8 (U.S. 2014) (dissent highlighting acquitted-conduct concerns)
- Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (U.S. 1997) (concerns about undercutting verdict of acquittal)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (beyond a reasonable doubt as precondition to deprivation of liberty)
- Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (U.S. 1968) (jury trial right as protection against government oppression)
- McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (judiciary findings at sentencing amid due process concerns)
- United States v. White, 551 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 2008) (discussion of acquitted conduct implications in sentencing)